Australia is Not Being Invaded
Content warning: genocide, murder; contains spoilers about the novel Bruny by Heather Rose
In the 2019 novel Bruny, Tasmanian author Heather Rose proposes a scenario where the entire state is sold to the Chinese. The Tasmanian population is then exiled to Bruny Island, off the southeast coast of Tasmania. Although the author describes this narrative as ‘naughty’ and ‘satirical,’ Bruny is better described as a cruel and irresponsible racist fantasy.
I’m writing this from Bruny Island, or lunawanna-alonnah as it is known in palawa kani, the reclaimed Indigenous language of Tasmania. It’s beautiful here. My window looks across the garden to a lush forest, through which I can catch a glimpse of the ocean. Most evenings a white wallaby visits the yard, and I fall asleep listening to the distant waves.
The privilege that enables me to enjoy this beauty comes from a history of genocide. This history has recently been told by historian Cassandra Pybus in her book Truganini: Journey Through the Apocalypse. This book tells the story of Truganini, an Indigenous Tasmanian palawa woman born on lunawanna-alonnah around 1812.
Before she had turned 20, colonizers had murdered Truganini’s mother and kidnapped her sisters into slavery. She lived through the most violent period of European aggression against Tasmania’s Indigenous people. It was, as Pybus suggests, an apocalyptic time.
Truganini lived most of her life in exile from lunawanna-alonnah, partly on islands in the Bass Strait, where survivors of the European war against Tasmania’s Indigenous population were resettled. This enforced exile was part of deliberate efforts to destroy the palawa people.
Rose’s novel mirrors this history intentionally. It offers a perverse inversion: a fantasy where the beneficiaries of colonial genocide become its victims. At one point, the protagonist muses, “Is this how the Aborigines had felt? …All these foreigners arriving. Arriving and not leaving again.” And when the Chinese plan to exile Tasmanians to lunawanna-alonnah is revealed, one character speculates that the plan will work because, “The Aborigines got moved [and] the government got away with that.”
This inversion encourages colonisers to think of themselves as victims, but not in a way that creates empathy. Instead it encourages a sense of victimhood that replaces and erases Indigenous history, in the same way settlers attempted to replace Indigenous populations. It is a cruel, anti-Indigenous fantasy, succinctly captured by the author Jinghua Qian: “Colonists are desperate to be invaded.”
But beyond being merely cruel, Rose’s narrative is irresponsible, given the historical moment in which it was written and published. Bruny was released amidst intense public debate in Australia about Chinese political influence, and widespread assertions that this debate was contributing to anti-Asian racism.
Much of this debate was triggered by the book Silent Invasion by Clive Hamilton, published in 2018. The Australian race discrimination commissioner at the time, Tim Soutphommasane, raised concerns that Hamilton’s book was “fanning the flames” of “Sinophobic racial sentiment.”
Chinese foreign interference in Australia is real. I’ve spoken publicly about my own experience of it, due to my research on China’s oppressive policies in Tibet. But the invasion narrative promoted by Hamilton inflates anxieties about foreign interference and converts them into racist yellow peril narratives. Interference is not invasion.
As University of Sydney academic David Brophy remarks, Roses’ novel Bruny is “Silent Invasion in fictional form.” Rose has claimed her novel is not racist, and only addresses Chinese influence as a topic of public concern. But the text is replete with racist stereotypes. The Chinese are inscrutable and greedy. They live in shabby, tiny apartments. They manufacture poor quality junk. They are good at repetitive mechanical tasks and incapable of creative thought.
But even more concerning is the way that Bruny’s narrative ties these Sinophobic anxieties to harmful right-wing ideologies. Why do the Chinese want to buy Tasmania? Rose tells us that it’s because their population is growing too fast. Their country has become overcrowded and dirty. Tasmania, with its clean air, rich soil and pristine environment, is “a sitting duck.”
These ideas—excessive population growth, environmental decay, and population replacement—are the core concepts of ecofascism. They merge effortlessly with white supremacy to suggest that ‘non-white’ populations are an existential environmental threat.
These ideas are bolstered by a pervasive sense in Rose’s book that ‘our’ way of life is under threat. The government has sold us out to commercial interests for a quick buck and a cynical grab for power. Our quietude and community are being torn apart by globalisation. Our culture is threatened by political correctness. And, as one of Rose’s characters tells us, there is “…a fear of speaking out. Of being seen as racist and xenophobic…”
This is a laundry list of right-wing populist ideas. And they are the foundations of the ideologies that motivated the white supremacist terrorists who carried out the Christchurch massacre, where 51 people were killed, and the mass shooting in El Paso where 23 people were murdered. Both of these events took place in 2019 in the months prior to the publication of Bruny. And yet the novel’s publisher, Allen and Unwin, still went ahead and published a book that trafficked in these dangerous ideas.
Genocide historian Dirk Moses, writing in the wake of Christchurch massacre, encouraged us to critically reflect on how paranoid narratives of white genocide and population replacement were permitted to circulate publicly. He argued that these narratives promote a ‘genocidal subjectivity.’ This subjectivity is a powerful, but false, sense of being a victim of genocide. For those captivated by this ‘genocidal subjectivity,’ killing can seem like self-defense.
Bruny helps to both spread and legitimise this sort of genocidal subjectivity. As a compelling piece of fiction it is particularly effective at doing this. But its status as fiction shouldn’t excuse it from scrutiny. Indeed, this is part of what has allowed the novel’s dangerous ideologies to bypass critical examination and circulate so widely.
In doing so, the novel appropriates Tasmania’s real history of genocide—the apocalypse that Truginini lived through—to suggest that settler Tasmanians could one day soon be the victims of a genocide, perpetrated by China. This is a cruel and irresponsible narrative.
Australia has a real history of invasion and genocide. Australian settlers continue to fail to confront and address this history. In part, we do this by imaging that we are being invaded and wiped out. This false sense of catastrophic victimhood lies at the heart of the idea that Australia is being invaded by China.
Australia was already invaded once. It is not being invaded again now.
内容预警：种族灭绝，屠杀，希瑟·罗斯的小说《布鲁尼岛》的剧透
塔斯马尼亚州作家希瑟·罗斯 (Heather Rose) 在其2019年付梓的小说《布鲁尼岛》中，营造了中国人豪购整个塔州这一情节。塔州居民随之被流放至塔州东南海角的布鲁尼岛。虽然作者形容该故事为博人一笑的“顽皮”与“讽刺”之作，《布鲁尼岛》实为一部冷酷无情、信口雌黄的种族主义幻想小说。
重见天日的塔斯马尼亚原住民语言（帕拉瓦卡尼语）称布鲁尼岛为“鲁纳瓦纳阿隆纳”。我就在岛上起草此陋文。这里风景宜人，窗外花园锦绣，连着一片茂林，透过丛树可以瞥见远方大海。黄昏时分暮色沉沉，一只白乎乎的小袋鼠总会跑到院子里来，而我枕着遥远的海浪声进入梦乡。
使我能够寄怀于眼前美景的特权来自一段种族屠杀的历史。史学家 Cassandra Pybus 的近作《楚格尼尼传：浩劫余生》通过1812年左右在塔斯马尼亚的鲁纳瓦纳阿隆纳岛出生的帕拉瓦部落女原住民楚格尼尼的一生，钩沉了这段史话。
楚格尼尼未及桃李年华，殖民者虐杀其母，并将她家中姐妹绑架为奴。她亲历了欧洲人对塔斯马尼亚原住民最为暴力的侵略时期。正如普巴斯所言，那是一个天崩地裂的灾难时代。
楚格尼尼几乎一生颠沛流离，远离家乡鲁纳瓦纳阿隆纳漂泊度日。她曾寓居于巴斯海峡的岛屿上，与战后迁徙至此的原住民幸存者为伴。这种被迫的流亡亦是殖民者蓄意妄图消灭帕拉瓦人的一种手段。
罗斯的小说有意映射了这段历史。它呈现一个有悖常理的反转：殖民种族灭绝的受惠者反而幻想自己沦落为其受害者。在某一场面，主人公若有所思道：“这就是土著人当时的感受吗？······这些外国人都来了。来了、赖着再也不走了。”当中国人欲将塔斯马尼亚居民放逐到鲁纳瓦纳阿隆纳的计划暴露时，书中一角色预测此计划会成功，因为“土著人曾流徙四方，但政府仍安堵如故。”
这种角色反转鼓励殖民者后裔将自己视为受害一方，但并未促使其产生对他人命运的感同身受。反之它推波助澜了自身的受害妄想，置换并抹杀原住民的历史，一如殖民者曾企图消灭原住民而取而代之。这是一种无情的反原住民幻想，被作家钱菁华一语道破：“殖民者渴盼被侵凌。”
然而鉴于罗斯写作与出版时的历史风云，其叙事不仅仅是无情无义，更是不负责任。《布鲁尼岛》问世之时，澳大利亚公众就中国对澳内政干预一事的争论正甚嚣尘上，是时人们普遍认为该舆情助长了反亚裔种族主义的猖獗。
这场争论的导火索多是由克莱夫·汉密尔顿 (Clive Hamilton) 于2018年印行的《无声的入侵》一书点燃的。前澳大利亚反种族歧视专员索奉马赛恩 (Tim Soutphommasane) 曾担忧该书为“恐华种族情绪”的蔓延而“煽风点火”。
中国对澳大利亚主权的干涉并非空穴来风。基于我的研究涉及到中国在西藏的强权政策，我曾公开谈论过耳闻目睹的亲身经历。但汉密尔顿所鼓吹的入侵论，煽动了澳人对外国干涉澳洲主权的焦虑情绪，并将此焦虑升级为种族主义的“黄祸论”。干涉并非侵略。
悉尼大学学者布罗菲 (David Brophy) 指出罗斯的小说《布鲁尼岛》是“小说体的《无声的入侵》”。罗斯声称其作品不存在种族歧视，而只是回应中国的影响力这一公众关注话题。但种族主义的刻板印象在文中铺天盖地：中国人高深莫测，贪得无厌；他们住在破旧不堪的小公寓里；他们制造劣质产品；他们擅长重复性的机械劳动，却无法胜任创造性的思考。
但更令人担忧的是，《布鲁尼岛》将恐华情绪与不良的右翼意识形态捆绑在一起。为什么中国人要买下塔斯马尼亚？罗斯的答案是因为他们国家人口疯涨。他们的国家已经人满为患，肮脏不堪。拥有清新空气、丰饶土地和原始环境的塔州则“人为刀俎，我为鱼肉”。
此等观点——人口过度增长、环境恶化和人口置换——是生态法西斯主义的核心概念。它们轻而易举地与白人至上主义融为一体，暗示“非白人”人群是攸关人类存亡的环境威胁。
在罗斯的书中，一种无所不在的感觉为这些思想撑腰：“我们”的生活方式正受到威胁。政府把我们出卖给商业利益集团，以赚取快钱、攫取私权。全球化把我们的安宁生活与社区撕得支离破碎。我们的文化受到政治正确的威胁。还有书中一位角色告诉我们：“人们害怕直抒胸臆，害怕被当作种族主义者、排外分子······”。
这是一份右翼民粹主义思想的冤情清单。这一系列想法也是激励白人至上主义恐怖分子实施基督城大屠杀（51人遇难）与埃尔帕索枪击案（23人被害）的意识形态的奠基石。这两起惨案均发生在2019年《布鲁尼岛》出版前的几个月。但 Allen & Unwin 出版社对此置若罔闻，仍坚持发行了这一贩卖危险思想的小说。
研究种族灭绝的历史学家莫西斯 (Dirk Moses) 在基督城大屠杀后撰文，鞭策读者思辨性地反思白人种族灭绝和人口置换的偏执论调是如何被允许公开传播的。他主张这些叙事推动了一种“种族灭绝主观性”的构建。这种主观性是一种强大但虚假的感觉：即认为自己是种族灭绝受害者。对于那些被此“种族灭绝主观性”蒙蔽双眼的人来说，杀戮似可视为正当防卫。
《布鲁尼岛》为此等种族灭绝主观性摇旗呐喊，且赋予其合法地位。作为一部引人入胜的小说，它甚为有效地到达了此目的。但是虚构作品的幌子不应成为它免于深究细查的借口。其实，小说这个护身符也是藏匿于该作的危险意识形态能够躲避批判性明察，并得以广泛流传的部分原因。
利用此伎俩，该小说挪用了塔斯马尼亚种族灭绝的血淋淋的历史背景——楚格尼尼亲历的浩劫——来借题发挥，暗示塔州白人殖民者后裔不久即将罹于锋镝，成为中国所犯下的种族灭绝罪行的刀下鬼。这是一个残忍且推脱责任的故事。
澳大利亚有过侵略与种族灭绝的真实历史。澳大利亚殖民者的后嗣一直未能直面这段历史，未能寻求和解之道。我们或多或少地想象我们自身正面临国破人亡的绝境，从而固步自封。这种错误的灾难性受害者心态是中国的铁骑正蹂躏澳洲疆土这一妄言的核心所在。
澳大利亚曾经历过一次被侵之灾。而此时实无兵临城下之虞。
杰拉尔德·罗奇为乐卓博大学高级研究员。
翻译：和容 （CIW博士生笔名）
內容預警：種族滅絕，屠殺，希瑟·羅斯的小說《布魯尼島》的劇透
塔斯馬尼亞州作家希瑟·羅斯 (Heather Rose) 在其2019年付梓的小說《布魯尼島》中，營造了中國人豪購整個塔州這一情節。塔州居民隨之被流放至塔州東南海角的布魯尼島。雖然作者形容該故事為博人一笑的“頑皮”與“諷刺”之作，《布魯尼島》實為一部冷酷無情、信口雌黃的種族主義幻想小說。
重見天日的塔斯馬尼亞原住民語言（帕拉瓦卡尼語）稱布魯尼島為“魯納瓦納阿隆納”。我就在島上起草此陋文。這里風景宜人，窗外花園錦繡，連著一片茂林，透過叢樹可以瞥見遠方大海。黃昏時分暮色沉沉，一隻白乎乎的小袋鼠總會跑到院子裡來，而我枕著遙遠的海浪聲進入夢鄉。
使我能夠寄懷於眼前美景的特權來自一段種族屠殺的歷史。史學家 Cassandra Pybus 的近作《楚格尼尼傳：浩劫餘生》通過1812年左右在塔斯馬尼亞的魯納瓦納阿隆納島出生的帕拉瓦部落女原住民楚格尼尼的一生，鉤沉了這段史話。
楚格尼尼未及桃李年華，殖民者虐殺其母，並將她家中姐妹綁架為奴。她親歷了歐洲人對塔斯馬尼亞原住民最為暴力的侵略時期。正如普巴斯所言，那是一個天崩地裂的災難時代。
楚格尼尼幾乎一生顛沛流離，遠離家鄉魯納瓦納阿隆納漂泊度日。她曾寓居於巴斯海峽的島嶼上，與戰後遷徙至此的原住民倖存者為伴。這種被迫的流亡亦是殖民者蓄意妄圖消滅帕拉瓦人的一種手段。
羅斯的小說有意映射了這段歷史。它呈現一個有悖常理的反轉：殖民種族滅絕的受惠者反而幻想自己淪落為其受害者。在某一場面，主人公若有所思道：“這就是土著人當時的感受嗎？······這些外國人都來了。來了、賴著再也不走了。”當中國人欲將塔斯馬尼亞居民放逐到魯納瓦納阿隆納的計劃暴露時，書中一角色預測此計劃會成功，因為“土著人曾流徙四方，但政府仍安堵如故。”
這種角色反轉鼓勵殖民者後裔將自己視為受害一方，但並未促使其產生對他人命運的感同身受。反之它推波助瀾了自身的受害妄想，置換並抹殺原住民的歷史，一如殖民者曾企圖消滅原住民而取而代之。這是一種無情的反原住民幻想，被作家錢菁華一語道破：“殖民者渴盼被侵凌。”
然而鑑於羅斯寫作與出版時的歷史風雲，其敘事不僅僅是無情無義，更是不負責任。 《布魯尼島》問世之時，澳洲公眾就中國對澳內政干預一事的爭論正甚囂塵上，是時人們普遍認為該輿情助長了反亞裔種族主義的猖獗。
這場爭論的導火索多是由克萊夫·漢密爾頓 (Clive Hamilton) 於2018年印行的《無聲的入侵》一書點燃的。前澳洲反種族歧視專員索奉馬賽恩 (Tim Soutphommasane) 曾擔憂該書為“恐華種族情緒”的蔓延而“煽風點火”。
中國對澳洲主權的干涉並非空穴來風。基於我的研究涉及到中國在西藏的強權政策，我曾公開談論過耳聞目睹的親身經歷。但漢密爾頓所鼓吹的入侵論，煽動了澳人對外國干涉澳洲主權的焦慮情緒，並將此焦慮升級為種族主義的“黃禍論”。干涉並非侵略。
雪梨大學學者布羅菲 (David Brophy) 指出羅斯的小說《布魯尼島》是“小說體的《無聲的入侵》”。羅斯聲稱其作品不存在種族歧視，而只是回應中國的影響力這一公眾關注話題。但種族主義的刻板印像在文中鋪天蓋地：中國人高深莫測，貪得無厭；他們住在破舊不堪的小公寓裡；他們製造劣質產品；他們擅長重複性的機械勞動，卻無法勝任創造性的思考。
但更令人擔憂的是，《布魯尼島》將恐華情緒與不良的右翼意識形態捆綁在一起。為什麼中國人要買下塔斯馬尼亞？羅斯的答案是因為他們國家人口瘋漲。他們的國家已經人滿為患，骯髒不堪。擁有清新空氣、豐饒土地和原始環境的塔州則“人為刀俎，我為魚肉”。
此等觀點——人口過度增長、環境惡化和人口置換——是生態法西斯主義的核心概念。它們輕而易舉地與白人至上主義融為一體，暗示“非白人”人群是攸關人類存亡的環境威脅。
在羅斯的書中，一種無所不在的感覺為這些思想撐腰：“我們”的生活方式正受到威脅。政府把我們出賣給商業利益集團，以賺取快錢、攫取私權。全球化把我們的安寧生活與社區撕得支離破碎。我們的文化受到政治正確的威脅。還有書中一位角色告訴我們：“人們害怕直抒胸臆，害怕被當作種族主義者、排外分子······”。
這是一份右翼民粹主義思想的冤情清單。這一系列想法也是激勵白人至上主義恐怖分子實施基督城大屠殺（51人遇難）與埃爾帕索槍擊案（23人被害）的意識形態的奠基石。這兩起慘案均發生在2019年《布魯尼島》出版前的幾個月。但 Allen & Unwin 出版社對此置若罔聞，仍堅持發行了這一販賣危險思想的小說。
研究種族滅絕的歷史學家莫西斯 (Dirk Moses) 在基督城大屠殺後撰文，鞭策讀者思辨性地反思白人種族滅絕和人口置換的偏執論調是如何被允許公開傳播的。他主張這些敘事推動了一種“種族滅絕主觀性”的構建。這種主觀性是一種強大但虛假的感覺：即認為自己是種族滅絕受害者。對於那些被此“種族滅絕主觀性”蒙蔽雙眼的人來說，殺戮似可視為正當防衛。
《布魯尼島》為此等種族滅絕主觀性搖旗吶喊，且賦予其合法地位。作為一部引人入勝的小說，它甚為有效地到達了此目的。但是虛構作品的幌子不應成為它免於深究細查的藉口。其實，小說這個護身符也是藏匿於該作的危險意識形態能夠躲避批判性明察，並得以廣泛流傳的部分原因。
利用此伎倆，該小說挪用了塔斯馬尼亞種族滅絕的血淋淋的歷史背景——楚格尼尼親歷的浩劫——來借題發揮，暗示塔州白人殖民者後裔不久即將罹於鋒鏑，成為中國所犯下的種族滅絕罪行的刀下鬼。這是一個殘忍且推脫責任的故事。
澳洲有過侵略與種族滅絕的真實歷史。澳洲殖民者的後嗣一直未能直面這段歷史，未能尋求和解之道。我們或多或少地想像我們自身正面臨國破人亡的絕境，從而固步自封。這種錯誤的災難性受害者心態是中國的鐵騎正蹂躪澳洲疆土這一妄言的核心所在。
澳洲曾經歷過一次被侵之災。而此時實無兵臨城下之虞。
杰拉爾德·羅奇為樂卓博大學高級研究員。
翻譯：和容 （CIW博士生筆名）
Content warning: genocide, murder; contains spoilers about the novel Bruny by Heather Rose
In the 2019 novel Bruny, Tasmanian author Heather Rose proposes a scenario where the entire state is sold to the Chinese. The Tasmanian population is then exiled to Bruny Island, off the southeast coast of Tasmania. Although the author describes this narrative as ‘naughty’ and ‘satirical,’ Bruny is better described as a cruel and irresponsible racist fantasy.
I’m writing this from Bruny Island, or lunawanna-alonnah as it is known in palawa kani, the reclaimed Indigenous language of Tasmania. It’s beautiful here. My window looks across the garden to a lush forest, through which I can catch a glimpse of the ocean. Most evenings a white wallaby visits the yard, and I fall asleep listening to the distant waves.
The privilege that enables me to enjoy this beauty comes from a history of genocide. This history has recently been told by historian Cassandra Pybus in her book Truganini: Journey Through the Apocalypse. This book tells the story of Truganini, an Indigenous Tasmanian palawa woman born on lunawanna-alonnah around 1812.
Before she had turned 20, colonizers had murdered Truganini’s mother and kidnapped her sisters into slavery. She lived through the most violent period of European aggression against Tasmania’s Indigenous people. It was, as Pybus suggests, an apocalyptic time.
Truganini lived most of her life in exile from lunawanna-alonnah, partly on islands in the Bass Strait, where survivors of the European war against Tasmania’s Indigenous population were resettled. This enforced exile was part of deliberate efforts to destroy the palawa people.
Rose’s novel mirrors this history intentionally. It offers a perverse inversion: a fantasy where the beneficiaries of colonial genocide become its victims. At one point, the protagonist muses, “Is this how the Aborigines had felt? …All these foreigners arriving. Arriving and not leaving again.” And when the Chinese plan to exile Tasmanians to lunawanna-alonnah is revealed, one character speculates that the plan will work because, “The Aborigines got moved [and] the government got away with that.”
This inversion encourages colonisers to think of themselves as victims, but not in a way that creates empathy. Instead it encourages a sense of victimhood that replaces and erases Indigenous history, in the same way settlers attempted to replace Indigenous populations. It is a cruel, anti-Indigenous fantasy, succinctly captured by the author Jinghua Qian: “Colonists are desperate to be invaded.”
But beyond being merely cruel, Rose’s narrative is irresponsible, given the historical moment in which it was written and published. Bruny was released amidst intense public debate in Australia about Chinese political influence, and widespread assertions that this debate was contributing to anti-Asian racism.
Much of this debate was triggered by the book Silent Invasion by Clive Hamilton, published in 2018. The Australian race discrimination commissioner at the time, Tim Soutphommasane, raised concerns that Hamilton’s book was “fanning the flames” of “Sinophobic racial sentiment.”
Chinese foreign interference in Australia is real. I’ve spoken publicly about my own experience of it, due to my research on China’s oppressive policies in Tibet. But the invasion narrative promoted by Hamilton inflates anxieties about foreign interference and converts them into racist yellow peril narratives. Interference is not invasion.
As University of Sydney academic David Brophy remarks, Roses’ novel Bruny is “Silent Invasion in fictional form.” Rose has claimed her novel is not racist, and only addresses Chinese influence as a topic of public concern. But the text is replete with racist stereotypes. The Chinese are inscrutable and greedy. They live in shabby, tiny apartments. They manufacture poor quality junk. They are good at repetitive mechanical tasks and incapable of creative thought.
But even more concerning is the way that Bruny’s narrative ties these Sinophobic anxieties to harmful right-wing ideologies. Why do the Chinese want to buy Tasmania? Rose tells us that it’s because their population is growing too fast. Their country has become overcrowded and dirty. Tasmania, with its clean air, rich soil and pristine environment, is “a sitting duck.”
These ideas—excessive population growth, environmental decay, and population replacement—are the core concepts of ecofascism. They merge effortlessly with white supremacy to suggest that ‘non-white’ populations are an existential environmental threat.
These ideas are bolstered by a pervasive sense in Rose’s book that ‘our’ way of life is under threat. The government has sold us out to commercial interests for a quick buck and a cynical grab for power. Our quietude and community are being torn apart by globalisation. Our culture is threatened by political correctness. And, as one of Rose’s characters tells us, there is “…a fear of speaking out. Of being seen as racist and xenophobic…”
This is a laundry list of right-wing populist ideas. And they are the foundations of the ideologies that motivated the white supremacist terrorists who carried out the Christchurch massacre, where 51 people were killed, and the mass shooting in El Paso where 23 people were murdered. Both of these events took place in 2019 in the months prior to the publication of Bruny. And yet the novel’s publisher, Allen and Unwin, still went ahead and published a book that trafficked in these dangerous ideas.
Genocide historian Dirk Moses, writing in the wake of Christchurch massacre, encouraged us to critically reflect on how paranoid narratives of white genocide and population replacement were permitted to circulate publicly. He argued that these narratives promote a ‘genocidal subjectivity.’ This subjectivity is a powerful, but false, sense of being a victim of genocide. For those captivated by this ‘genocidal subjectivity,’ killing can seem like self-defense.
Bruny helps to both spread and legitimise this sort of genocidal subjectivity. As a compelling piece of fiction it is particularly effective at doing this. But its status as fiction shouldn’t excuse it from scrutiny. Indeed, this is part of what has allowed the novel’s dangerous ideologies to bypass critical examination and circulate so widely.
In doing so, the novel appropriates Tasmania’s real history of genocide—the apocalypse that Truginini lived through—to suggest that settler Tasmanians could one day soon be the victims of a genocide, perpetrated by China. This is a cruel and irresponsible narrative.
Australia has a real history of invasion and genocide. Australian settlers continue to fail to confront and address this history. In part, we do this by imaging that we are being invaded and wiped out. This false sense of catastrophic victimhood lies at the heart of the idea that Australia is being invaded by China.
Australia was already invaded once. It is not being invaded again now.